Quickloads ?? Is it worth the $$

I can't say it like Darkker, but there are some crazy-wild selections in QL. Things that could get you in a mess.
So the golden rules of reloading still and always apply.

It is also true that every prediction employed should to be validated, with parameter tweaking into calibration.

Darkker said:

Here's what no QL fan will ever tell you, none of them have ever actually measured pressure.
So when they tell you "it works and it's really close" what they mean is they dialed with burning rates and start pressures(which is ridiculous and always zero) until they got the chronograph to match the prediction. Then the their hands up and proclaimed a victory in the name of logical fallacies....

Groupe SNPE powders, QL is rather close to reality. Legacy Thales powders before the arsenal was torn down and the process completely changed, not terrible.
General Dynamics(especially the progressive powders) and several Rhinemetal powders it's flat dangerously wrong.

So "is it worth it"? Depends on what you think you know, Vs what do you really want to know?
If you think "Alliant" or "Winchester" have actually made powder in the last several decades. Then no, QL isn't worth it and you will lead yourself down a path of false information and won't actually learn anything.
If you think the "brand that's true" doesn't flip flop suppliers, like your teenage daughter changes outfits; then it isn't worth it.
The GRT fans are in the same boat. Gordon died several years ago, and took the source code with him. Those of us who measure pressure and were contributing to his calculator, all stopped sending data in because they can't change anything.


Now on the flipper.
If you're one of the few QL users who doesn't pretend it's the Oracle of Delphi, then as you know it's a great tool. You can get an idea or a direction for something, that you can them go out and actually measure the pressure on.

Click to expand...

Good summary. The biggest advance to QL or GRT is if the powder makers would contribute data. Also, GRT does have a team providing/updating data and working on GRT 2.0. I am part of the testing team and it should be out ~ Dec/Jan

Mikecr said:

I can't say it like Darkker, but there are some crazy-wild selections in QL. Things that could get you in a mess.
So the golden rules of reloading still and always apply.

It is also true that every prediction employed should to be validated, with parameter tweaking into calibration.

Click to expand...

A few years ago, I was set to purchase one and I received a similar advice to yours about QL and GRT. So, I abandoned the idea.

No matter the source of reloading info, powders vary by lot.
At least with QL you can calibrate your local powder lot, per the charge and resultant MV, and then predictions can be relied on -with that powder. Assume a bit of error with everything else and work up smartly.

Justice1327 said:

Good summary. The biggest advance to QL or GRT is if the powder makers would contribute data. Also, GRT does have a team providing/updating data and working on GRT 2.0. I am part of the testing team and it should be out ~ Dec/Jan

Click to expand...

When I asked why Grand was not included in the latest QL below is what I got.

FEENIX said:

When I asked why Grand was not included in the latest QL below is what I got.

View attachment 612671

Click to expand...

Yeah, Some companies use it and some avoid it. I always wondered why some reloading manuals/online data say something to the effect of " Load data was generated using software ..."
I have the same experience has many here have....using it mostly for wildcats or new powders that seem like a odd choice for a given cartridge...like RL26 in a 6.5Creedmoor...would not have been my first choice.

Justice1327 said:

Yeah, Some companies use it and some avoid it. I always wondered why some reloading manuals/online data say something to the effect of " Generating load data using software..."
I have the same experience has many here have....using it mostly for wildcats or new powders that seem like a odd choice for a given cartridge...like RL26 in a 6.5Creedmoor...would not have been my first choice.

Click to expand...

I think this a fairly new stance, as in new this year, at least for Hodgdon.

I'v had some QL data that was incorrect and I have also found some Hodgdon data that was incorrect (I wish I could remember, I think Ql was 10mm and Hodgdon was 460 S&W). I'm not sending rockets into space, I am using QL along with load data in manuals and on line to verify my loads. I like at least two sources to verify my loads.

The thing with the software is it's garbage in garbage out. If you don't have measured fired cases and a chrono, it's basically worthless.

I like the option of playing with my own particular seating depths, barrel length, combo. Then I can play with the various powders I have at my disposal. I really like a powder choice that is right at 102% or so case fill. It gives me data that the books and online sources don't. Now, is the case fill or the velocity perfectly correct? Heck no. You always must start low and go up.

But its one more, or several more data points. Sometimes it gives you really different numbers than you expected or saw in a book. Sometimes very close to what you get. Its just a tool. Its no more accurate than book data (which is always cached in "work up in your gun" admonitions).

Biggest gripe from me is that Hodgdon is no longer playing ball and providing data about their powders. My Stablall HD is not supported. And perhaps never will be..........

cdherman said:

I like the option of playing with my own particular seating depths, barrel length, combo. Then I can play with the various powders I have at my disposal. I really like a powder choice that is right at 102% or so case fill. It gives me data that the books and online sources don't. Now, is the case fill or the velocity perfectly correct? Heck no. You always must start low and go up.

But its one more, or several more data points. Sometimes it gives you really different numbers than you expected or saw in a book. Sometimes very close to what you get. Its just a tool. Its no more accurate than book data (which is always cached in "work up in your gun" admonitions).

Biggest gripe from me is that Hodgdon is no longer playing ball and providing data about their powders. My Stablall HD is not supported. And perhaps never will be..........

Click to expand...

There's ways to get that data. GRT has a whole little FAQ on how to do it.

akmtnhnt said:

The thing with the software is it's garbage in garbage out. If you don't have measured fired cases and a chrono, it's basically worthless.

Click to expand...

IMHO No it isn't worthless. For both programs an estimated average case capacity and an expected pressure along with an anticipated velocity is given. This information is useful in trying to determine if a specific type of powder will give you the case capacity you're looking for along with fill rate to see if it will burn completely.
But do agree that the more accurate your input data is and the more accurate their powder data is…the more accurate your results will be.

Addressing Horse and Mike's comments, those are nice ideas, but they are also the logical fallacy I warned about.

When you look in a manual, almost none of them actually tell you what max pressure for max velocity is. It should be I've to you they the few which do, are all river numbers... There is a serious safety concern why they do that. Just as how most of the time various loads are well below SAAMI max, which is where the Crayon eaters decided things were lawyered down.
People who failed high school math, never read anything about standard deviations on the SAAMI site, and again never measured pressure; all think that way. Burning powder doesn't work in a beautiful linear pressure fashion, where we can all hold hands and sing in harmony.

The idea of calibrating your specific lot of powder off MV alone, is unfortunately also not realistic in the way you wish it was. Just look at the trace before for a bit, then join me down below it.





The folks who've wandered deep enough into QL have undoubtedly looked at the burning curves. But unless they've actually measured pressure, they don't understand that QL simply tries to guess a "best fit" for the burning curve based upon velocity. The burning curves in QL aren't real, and really don't match reality at all.

So what the trace above recorded, was a burning curve running away when I was shooting. For context, that was a mid -book load, except I swapped bullet construction types. If you can't read the info on the trace, the velocity is exactly where it should be for that load, But the pressure was 10,000 psi higher than it should have been.

Max pressure alone, doesn't tell you what you need to know, and unless you can record the area Uber the curve over time; paying someone $300 to guess so you don't have to; isn't a "better" way to gain knowledge.

While Pressure Trace shows a burn's form, unless using an official test barrel (SAAMI), the hard numbers could be as wrong as QuickLoad estimates.
Right?
The alternative to either (manuals) gives us nothing.